The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1887-10-11

BY the President of the Late
Confederacy.
THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN

HoUsToN, Texas, September 26-An open
letter from Jefferson Davis to Senator Reagan
on the prohibition issue has been made public
here. Mr.. Davis begins by scoring the sena-
tor sharply for the construction which he put
on the Dayis-Lubbock correspondence. He
says:
Il certainly have no claim on the people Of Texas
but freely acknowledge my Indebtedness to them,
and, having for many years felt deep interest in
their affairs I might reasonably have supposed
that l had an equal right to express an opinion
upon them as that accorded TO Georgia negro who
was imported by your party to influence the voters
Of his color, and who, it reported, had been at
one or two public meetings introduced by you to
the ladies and gentlemen of Texas. This is to be
viewed in connection with the ale
CATION that the white democrats had
been defeated by the Mexicans and
negroes who voted against prohibition. In your
zeal 10 support the doctne of prohibition you cite
tie law against carrying concealed weapons, but
here again the answer is potent, The law does not
invade the right to keep and bear arms for private
and public license, but the abuse of that right by
such practice rs BELTS the assassin and the burglar
the invader of the rights Of Others To carry out your
theory to its logical conclusion, deadly weapons
may lead to crime, III sale, importation and manu-
facture Of firearms and cutlery should be prohibited
and TINS wholly eXtrpate the vile use which would
follow abuse hy their possessor.
&AmOng the instances you cite Of the infringement
Of personal liberty IS the prohibition of the first pa
rents to eat the fruit of the tree of life But the
facts of the case seem hardly to sustain your theory
as the Creator did not destroy the tree 50 asto make
it impossible that first parents could cat of the
fruit but he rather left them as free agents in their
moral responsibility, with penalty attached TO the
violation Of his command They had their own per-
sonal liberty, and were left to choose between vir-
tuous obedience and simple violation Of the
law given for their good. They choose to
offend and suffered the penalty. Do
laws for the punishment of crime abridge personal
liberty, or rather they not guardians Of the nat
uIal rights, which III state of society might be
violated by the evil dispose? 1t strikes me as a
misuse oftenms to describe the commission Of crime
as the exercise of personal liberty The natural
rights OF man a-e those which belong 10 the social
condition. That being his natural state of exist
encc, those are termed 'inaenabe' the exercise of
which society has no right to obstruct
The su OF tn re .ent e. &C ion in your state
ma ne Il S IN C ,nt aztec against the surrender
o. thtr inalienuble ri ;hts and privileges by the
interviewing people OF Texas there no posi-
bility that an ism which has shown such expansive
courtesy W Il seek to embody itself in federal legis-
latOn? OIL who have borne an honorable part In
two wars for the 1pendence of Texas may have
on another occasion to defend her .ghts as state
II you should insist that all roYeIs are reserved
which had not been delegate d, and that sumptUarv
legislation would be usurpation and in yiolati N
Of personal liberty, might not your prohibit
ton doctrine come back to plague you? If over
powered by numbers, what would be the condition
of the minority section? BY laws and recent usage
union soldiers are to be preferred for federal APP
pointments. The prohibition law ana policy would
involve domiciary visits. II requires no proph
to foresce what would be the condition of our PEG
pie; what would be the moral decadence resulting
from the domination of spies, informers and foreign
officials May God in his mercy shield Us from all
the consequent evils of such policy which to paint
would require colorS even deeper than those you
have employed
gratifying result of the Texas election, as re-
ported to Inc, was that the counties which had
favored local option did as rule vote against the
amendment. 1t was gratifying for two reasons 1t
evidenced a just discrimination between local OPP
ton and state prohibition and showed that it was
not the drunkards and traders i'll whisky who con-
stitute the opposition to the amendment. The cor
nersone ofmy political creed is, that all the just
powers of government are derived from the consent
of the governed, but that there are in
alienable rights of man which government
cannot rightfully deprive him. To do So
either by a majority of the people, by mill
tary coercion, or under the dogma of divine right
is despotisn. In this general proposition it is as
sumed that you will concur, and though we have
recently been separated by a single question trust
fully look forward to reunion on the broader field
which lies beyond. In conclusion permit me to ex-
press the hope that it win give you less pain to read
this letter than the necessity for wrIngit has given
10 me and to assure you thatI remain faithfully
your friend, JEFFERSON DAVIS